Say Anything: Reader Blogs

Pre School Argumentation - Why ‘R&~R’ is false and Pilgrim is a dailykos emo creampuff blogger

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-05-10T14:06:00-08:00

I recently attempted to highlight some of the problems in the front page argumentation here at sayanything. Apparently, my presentation asked for too much attention or acumen on the part of the reader for my point to have been conveyed succinctly and clearly, despite my efforts. I recieved such responses as:

I guess I just don’t speak moron.

Let’s pause here for a second and meditate on this comment from Pilgrim. Anyone who frequents this site knows that a popular thing for the Republican commentators at sayanything to bash on is the dailykos and their lack of rationality and overabundance of emotional appeals and contradictory, self-serving ‘puff’. Given this is such a popular theme for these commentators to rail on, one would think that my effort to help them iron out their inconsistencies and outright contradictions would have been welcomed. After all, these commentators purport to uphold rationality in the face of emotional appeals, do they not?

Since my efforts were perhaps a bit too succinct and demanded a bit to much rationality from this rational crowd (c.f. Pilgrim’s above comment for example), I will make an effort to recast the entire argument so that I can make it clearer and get my point across. I will make a better effort at communication, for the future interests of Pilgrim, so he might save himself from looking like a dailykos commentator; an irrational, emotional, flip-flopper.

Let me try to recast my recent post in a slightly less ‘moron’ manner.

---------------------------------------------

Rational people often employ something called logic when they make arguments. A typical argument has premises and a conclusion, which, hopefully, is entailed in the premises. If the conclusion is correctly entailed by the premises, we call that a valid argument. Formal logic is the study of inference in a purely formal or symbolized manner. An example of this would be a ‘modus tollens’ argument which runs as follows:

Premise 1: P→Q.

Premise 2: ~Q

Conclusion: ~P.

We can flesh this out with a real life example. One might argue that:

Premise 1: If Islam is a religion of peace, then pious Muslims are peaceful.

Premise 2: Its not the case that pious Muslims are peaceful.

Conclusion: Its not the case that Islam is a religion of peace.

I choose this argument because it is often made here on sayanything and, moreover, it is a valid argument form. Unfortunately, that’s not all that’s needed. In addition to a valid form, the argument must relate to the world in a certain way. The premises must be true. IF (A) the argument is valid & (B) the premises are true, THEN (C) the argument is sound. (If we formalize the sentence in bold, we get the following conditional where the antecedent is a conjunct: (A & B) → C). If its obvious that the above argument is valid, but if someone wishes to deny that it is sound, the burden is on them to pick the premise which they believe does not relate to the world in the appropriate manner, namely their burden is to choose a premise they believe to be false. What one needs is a counterexample to render the premise false. In the case of the above argument, one may choose premise 2 as being false, on real world evidence such as this. So, even though the argument form is valid, we find problems in the way in which it is related to the world. In short, we find counterexamples to premise 2, thereby rendering premise 2 false - the argument might be valid, but it is unsound.

In my recent post on Pilgrim’s lack of rationality, I exploited a modus tollens argument:

Premise 1: P→(R&~R)

Premise 2: ~(R&~R)

Conclusion: ~P

Where P = Pilgrim is correct and R = its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech. So, making the appropriate replacements and boldfacing the operators, we have:

Premise 1: If Pilgrim is correct then (its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech and its not the case that its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech.)

Premise 2: Its not the case that (its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech and its not the case that its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech.)

Conclusion: Its not the case that Pilgrim is correct.

Now, we have seen above that this form of argumentation is valid, but we need to go a bit further. We need to prove that the premises are true if we want the argument to be sound.

(1)Premise one rests on competing claims that Pilgrim has made in two of his recent posts. To be charitable, we will assume that Pilgrim is correct - that gives us P (Which I am making an effort to disprove here). He has made two claims. The first one I have formalized as R. This is the claim that its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech. We have evidence for attributing this claim to Pilgrim here. In the post, Pilgrim refers to the suppression of the Phelps’ right to free speech the “feel good moment of the day” and also closes with ”Good for the students at UW.” Thus, we can see that the attribution of R to Pilgrim is supported. We have also attributed ~R to Pilgrim. ~R amounts to the claim that its not the case that its good when UW students suppress others’ freedom of speech. We attribute that to Pilgrim on the basis of another recent post. In that post, Pilgrim is complaining that a UW student suppressed the free speech of another and claiming, moreover, that its bad. He says, “Their tolerance extends only to themselves and their politcal point of view.” He effectively condemns the suppression of a student who had placed 4,000 crosses on the green in an act of free speech. (And he spells political wrong.) On this basis, we find premise 1 to be sound.

(2) Premise two is what is referred to as an analytic truth or a tautology. We need not look for examples in the world to know that R=R. Furthermore, we need not look for examples in the world to know that ~(R&~R). A&~A, for example, would amount to the claim that ‘I am a human and I am not a human’. Because A and ~A are ‘mutually exclusive’, we know that any conjunction of them will be false. Hence the contents of premise 2: Its not the case that R and ~R. Premise 2 is a tautology - its as true as saying R=R, its effing obvious.

(Conclusion) Remember in the beginning when we said that we will assume that Pilgrim is correct to be charitable? Well, the introduction of that assumption has led is to a contradiction which allows us to negate that assumption. Thus we have ‘Its not the case that Pilgrim is correct’ or ‘~P’.

Now we have seen that the premises of my argument entail the conclusion in a valid manner and, moreover, we have seen that they are true premises. I hope that this extended effort to communicate the nuances of YOUR OWN arguments has been of aid to you Pilgrim. Hopefully, if you keep stuff like this in mind, you will be able to better deflect accusations such as, “You blog like the emo cream puffs over at dailykos.” It seems to me that someone who has ‘front page privileges’ over here would make an effort to steer clear of vulnerability to such accusations. After all, this isn’t the dailykos is it?

Argumentation 101 - Reductio ad absurdum

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-05-09T16:32:00-08:00

In symbols:

To disprove p: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is any proposition and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean “and”. Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply ¬p.

See here for background on the following substitutions:

1) Let ‘p’ equal ‘Pilgrim is correct’.

2) Let ‘R’ equal ‘its good when UW students suppress free speech’.

To disprove p or ‘Pil is correct’: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is ‘its good when UW students suppress free speech’ and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean “and”.

Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R).

If Pil is correct then its good when UW students suppress free speech and its not good when UW students suppress free speech.

This and the tautology together imply ¬p.

If the assumption that Pil is correct leads to a contradiction, then Pil is not correct.

Pil is not correct.

On God, Science, and Other Stuff

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-05-01T04:22:00-08:00

I saw that Ben Stein thread. It was… disappointing. And so, I just wanted to make a few broad observations.

First, Dougee holds that the bible is 100% literal truth. I would like to note a few things in response to that. First, the bible tells us that the earth is at the center of the universe and doesn’t move. Second, the bible
contradicts itself internally. Anyone who reads it with attention knows this. Of all the various, conflicting accounts of Jesus’s death, which one is literal truth?

Second, science is associated with the commies, the watermelons, and the Maoists. One forgets that we kicked all their asses… with science.

Third, and most problematically, it has been claimed that without religion, there is no morality. I would just like someone to back that up in a substantiative manner. It strikes me that obscuring the truth is immoral. Also, does one need fear of eternal pain in order to be coerced into treating others well? That’s what this amounts to. What’s wrong with being moral just for the sake of doing the right thing? Treating others well? Would you not treat others well if tomorrow it was discovered without a doubt that God does not exist?

Fourth, I would like to quote Spinoza on this one, a man of science and a man of God, one of the brightest people of all time, IMO. The man who wrote an argument for liberal republicanism in 1670, a worn copy of which was in Locke’s library when he penned the political theory that led to the formation of this country:

So long as men act simply from fear they act contrary to their inclinations, taking no thought for the advantages or necessity of their actions, but simply endeavoring to escape punishment or loss of life.

I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God.

Bit O’ Honey Wisdom

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-21T01:09:01-08:00

He who has a strong enough why can bear almost any how.

Before the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

SayAnything Commentators: Liars, Pedophile Apologists, Fascists, and They’re Anti ME Democracy Too

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-17T20:59:00-08:00

Alright, we have four cases to make here. Let’s be short and sweet:

1) Liars - Here I have in mind Toot and Bat. Their most recent, blatant fibbing can be viewed here and here. Intentional of not, it was posted. If ‘Liar’ is to strong… we’ll just have to settle for misrepresenters of truth or some other analogue.

2) Pedophile apologists - Well well. Recent events involving more religious fanatics who get their rocks of by marrying and raping girls who are well neigh the legal age to consent… have led Rob to come to their defense. Now we are hearing cries of ’return these children to their families‘.

3) Fascism - Whether or not you knew it or cared, a fascist coalition government was elected four days ago in Italy. While many view it as a sad step backwards and a strike against free society, two of our very own commentators (r108 & chief) are just giddy over the developments. See for yourself. Chief even had the gall to call it a victory of right over wrong.

4) Anti ME Democracy - Within days of authoring a call for ME democracy and the dissolution of the tribal system, BatOne has expressed his contempt for the results of a ME election of great importance that was forced on Palestine by pressure from Bush and Condi. Not only that, he lied in an effort to support Rob (see #1). Rob, the owner of this blog, has called an effort at diplomacy with the newly democratically elected leaders of Palestine ”nauseating”. Meanwhile, Bush and Condi back ‘terrorists’ in Palestine, and meet with them regularly. “Nauseating.”
-----
Edit: Oh, and Pilgrim ain't that cool either. And he's a fuzz. Rob says fuzz are a bummer, man.

…and you thought the american flag art was bad…

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-17T18:45:00-08:00

Wow. Putting the screws to the ethicists!

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Wow. And people caused a ruckus when DuChamp showed a urinal? I guess its something to do next weekend if you are in the Yale vicinity. Get some popcorn and some Mike n’ Ikes and head down to see this girl’s ‘film’.

Riots

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-15T02:16:01-08:00

Wow. We are giving out money like candy… to try to cure the upshots of giving out money like candy…

Rising food prices have sparked recent riots in several countries, including Haiti, the Philippines and Egypt.

The World Bank has said a doubling of food prices in three years could push 100m more people into poverty.

...

World Bank head Robert Zoellick had on Sunday proposed a “new deal” action plan for a long-term boost to agricultural production.

So, I was chided for intimating that the Bear and Stearns bailout, and the opening of the federal reserve to irresponsible lenders, is more Mao than it is market maintenance. Now we have Zoellick (Bush’s former deputy secretary of state) giving ‘new deal’ speeches? Maybe hotel will take back his snarky effing comment now.
---
First, we all know the 'new deal' was unconstitutional, but it happened anyway.

Second, what was it? We made fake money out of real money, back then. Now... what are we going to do make fake-fake-fake money?

Dissent is Change

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-12T00:56:00-08:00

Duh.

We have read many a whiny tirade bemoaning the inability of the population to be patriotic, supportive, and the lot.

I just want to point out the power of dissent, how special it is, how important it is, and so forth.

We hear ‘esteemed’ Mr. Limbaugh wishing he could squelch out the dissent when the country is engaged in a project or few that he is pleased with. Yet, come hell and high water, Mr. Limbaugh goes into dissent mode, exercises his negative, positive freedoms… and spouts asymmetrical hypocrisy loud and clear.

I like to argue. Most times, I don’t even find out why I really hold a position until I have argued with others, heard the problems, seen the boundaries, and so forth.

Its effing wonderful! SO, when you disagree vehemently with me, which you will because I think what you have to say is patently false, don’t forget to thank me for helping you understand your position better. And, if we uphold reason and the like, let’s uphold dissent… and show it a bit of appreciation. After all, where else would change come from?

Why, in the end, are we most pleased when we agree with others? Or if we have been able to convert them forever into dogmatic piety of our choosing? Do we really advocate democracy as an intrinsic good and turn our nose at dissent?

Fad Politics

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-04-09T02:23:00-08:00

From time to time there come about certain fads which we partake in, only to find evidence of it years later which appalls us. “To think I once wore that!” ...and so forth.

The center-heavy, uni-branch, Mao-style government that has been ‘all the craze’ of late is one phenomenon I count among these ‘fads’. Imagine a few years down the road, the silly things one gets tricked into saying. View the slippery slope towards Mao-style government that Bush has brought us down. Is this something that ‘conservatives’ (little ‘c’ will just miss, absorb, move on from. Can you guys really rationalize the Bear and Stearns thing as just market maintenance? How far must we pound out our definitions to convince ourselves this is ‘conservative’. Market maintenance or moving towards Mao? What is quasi-public? Is little ‘c’ conservatism still viable? If only the hardworking rural folk weren’t working, if only they could take some time off. They wouldn’t even have to spend as much time in the mirror looking at themselves as all politicians doubtlessly do… if we could get them to remind us once again what matters. Its rapport with your neighbors, so that when a cow dies you can call them and have em dig you a big hole with their backhoe on the cheap before it starts to stink…

Pulic Service Announcment from 1670

Sparkie Arbuckle — 2008-03-18T03:36:00-08:00

Spinoza, in his Theological-Political Treatise of 1670, offers a salient point:

...anyone who makes reason and philosophy the servant of theology will be obliged to accept as divinely inspired the prejudices of the common people of antiquity and let his mind be taken over and clouded by them.

I can think of a few people who missed this memo; some who comment on this blog, perhaps some of the televangelists, Hitler, the Hindu hardliners in India, countless missionaries in Africa, the Saudi royalty, and of course Osama bin Laden and his little group of petty thugs. Leave it to Spinoza to find a unifying theme, eh?